Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Prostitutes don't ply their trade at 5am

Chapman would not have been looking for punters till that time of the morning

Sexual serial murderers don't look for streetwalker victims at 5.30 a.m.

As I pointed out, Chapman was confident that she would have found a customer long before that time.

Nichols, Stride and Eddowes evidently did not need to wait that long, either.

As ever, those who argue in favour of a late TOD have to fall back on the argument that this time the improbable happened.

It takes Chapman hours longer than she expected to find a customer, the murderer is out looking for victims hours later than usual, the murderer is prepared to commit murder in a confined space even though it is getting light, Chapman is willing to go with him into number 29 even though she must be familiar with its occupants' habits, the murderer chooses not to use the tap water to clean his hands, no-one reports having seen Chapman or the murderer enter, inside, or leave the house, no-one reports having seen Chapman for three and a half hours, Chapman's body cools unusually quickly, rigor mortis of her limbs sets in unusually quickly, and the clocks have to be wrong to such a degree that Cadoche has to be able to hear the woman seen by Long.

And anyone who questions this long list of improbabilities having actually happened is treated as though he has a defective logical faculty and as if anyone ought to be able to appreciate that such coincidences happen in such abundance all the time.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Jeff,

An alternative idea that would account for her not being seen by anyone would be that she was lying dead in the backyard of #29. The area she emerged into from the doss house was the geographic profiling hot spot, so it was not altogether unlikely that Jack may have picked her up there immediately after she left the doss house. All the victims lived in this vicinity, so she/they may have known him as a fellow drinker at a local pub such as The Ten Bells or Ringers. This would fit with the Scotland yard memo to the police stations. I am wary of building scenarios based on a preconceived conclusion in the way that Sugden built his argument by commencing with the presumption of a 5:30 murder.

Best regards, George

Hi George

Prostitutes don't ply their trade at 5am

Chapman would not have been looking for punters till that time of the morning

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Swanson wrote:

the evidence of Mrs. Long which appeared to be so important to the Coroner, must be looked upon with some amount of doubt

Where did he make a similar statement about Phillips' evidence?

What would have qualified Swanson to second guess Phillips estimation? Don’t you think that the police at the time assumed that their experts were correct. Unless you expect Swanson to have quoted from 21st century text books then it’s hardly surprising that he placed great store in Phillips estimate.

Fortunately, we now know better because we have an army of modern day experts who tell us so. Remember them……the ones that you and FM believe that you know bettter than.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The problem here is that nothing registers. Medical evidence or explanations are provided but a very few post later they are ignored and we go back over the same ground.

A poster corrects a misapprehension about what has been said and yet a few posts later it’s back to stating the original error.

Over and again it goes.

The same thing happened to Eddowes, with the intestines thrown over the shoulder on the same side and in similar weather conditions.

Posters are arguing that Chapman, who was almost completely cold, had been dead for only about one hour.

Eddowes was examined about 42 minutes after death, yet was still warm.

And it has been explained a gazillion times that we cannot compare the two. Bodies react differently. Why do you ignore this? This is what experts tell us.


If Long was earlier than she thought, then why would she have mistaken the quarter hour chime for the half hour chime, even though they were different, and she went to the market regularly?

And why would she state that she arrived at the market a few minutes after half past if it was actually only a few minutes after a quarter past?

And it has been explained a gazillion times that that’s not the suggestion being made here. Yes, it’s been made previously but not now. I’ll repeat…..not now. The suggestion is one of clock inaccuracy and poor synchronisation. Why do you have to invent arguments against a suggestion which isn’t being made? The ‘mishearing the bells’ theory is not one that has been promoted with any vehemence recently. I believe it’s been mentioned in passing but that’s all.

And why would no-one at the market note that she was early, or do you think everyone else there was living in a parallel universe where everything happened a quarter of an hour earlier?

Because no one would have noticed her being 5 minutes or so early. Oh I forgot, your still talking about the point that no one on here is talking about. Right.

And if, alternatively, Cadoche mistakenly thought it was earlier than it was, why did his colleagues or superiors at work not notice that he arrived late, or were they too living in a parallel universe in which everything happened a quarter of an hour later?

Mmmm, yes you’re still working from a suggestion that no one is making. If he’d got to work earlier it would have been 5 minutes or so and no one would have taken a blind bit of notice.

Are there any other points not relevant to what is being suggested on here that you want to dismiss while you’re at it? I’m trying to get the hang of these rules.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Obviously if two key witnesses disagree, then there must be "some doubt" - that is unavoidable.

Swanson wrote:

the evidence of Mrs. Long which appeared to be so important to the Coroner, must be looked upon with some amount of doubt

Where did he make a similar statement about Phillips' evidence?

[Doctored Whatsit]

As I explained, I was citing Wolf Vanderlinden's opinion.

In the same report, Swanson wrote:

the evidence of Mrs. Long which appeared to be so important to the Coroner, must be looked upon with some amount of doubt

That obviously DOES establish something about Swanson's opinion of Long's testimony.

Furthermore, if Swanson had found Long's evidence to be credible, why after making all those enquiries did he write that he had no clue?

Didn't he have a description of a 40-plus dark foreigner?

Obviously if two key witnesses disagree, then there must be "some doubt" - that is unavoidable.

As I previously wrote, Swanson was stating that certain listed enquiries - which had nothing to do with Long - "didn't supply the slightest clue".

Long only claimed to have seen the back of the man, so her description was never going to be truly helpful. She was never going to be able to pick him out at an identity parade, for example.

Incidentally, while we are talking about Swanson's report, if anyone is still considering the evidence of the alleged dark bearded man in the passage of 29 Hanbury Street, Swanson doesn't mention him, nor does Abberline, so it must surely be assumed that there is some confusion of stories. Swanson does specify that the enquiries of other residents etc didn't produce the slightest clue.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

There is absolutely no connection whatever between your quote above "up to the present the combined result of those enquiries did not supply the slightest clue to the murderer", and Long's statement or Swanson's opinion as to its reliability. Your interpretation by linking them together is therefore totally irrelevant and without foundation.

The quote refers to and follows an account of certain listed police enquiries since the murder, for example at 29 Hanbury St, other lodging houses, pawnbrokers, the "insane students", and "other women of the same class" etc. Swanson wrote that those specific enquiries produced no evidence of value. The comment has nothing to do with Long's account, so you cannot claim that it "obviously" establishes anything about Swanson's opinion of Long.

As I explained, I was citing Wolf Vanderlinden's opinion.

In the same report, Swanson wrote:

the evidence of Mrs. Long which appeared to be so important to the Coroner, must be looked upon with some amount of doubt

That obviously DOES establish something about Swanson's opinion of Long's testimony.

Furthermore, if Swanson had found Long's evidence to be credible, why after making all those enquiries did he write that he had no clue?

Didn't he have a description of a 40-plus dark foreigner?

[Doctored Whatsit]

It is Wolf Vanderlinden's interpretation.

I quote from his dissertation 'Considerable Doubt' and the Death of Annie Chapman:


The police were obviously depending upon Dr. Phillips' opinions and his standing as a reliable medical expert when directing the course of their investigations. To the detectives working on the Chapman murder, Dr. Phillips' estimated time of death made Long and Cadosch irrelevant.

This sentiment is also expressed in Swanson's report.

hence the evidence of Mrs. Long which appeared to be so important to the Coroner, must be looked upon with some amount of doubt, which is to be regretted.

This "doubt" apparently soon became the conviction that Mrs. Long's testimony was worthless.

It is now time to look at Dr. Phillips' opinions about the time of death of Annie Chapman, opinions that were supported by Scotland Yard.

Swanson wrote that if Long was right, Phillips was wrong, and that if Phillips was correct, Long was incorrect. He was demonstrating to The Home Office that witness evidence was contradictory, and therefore there had to be some doubt. I am aware of no evidence that the "doubt" ever became a "conviction" or that Scotland Yard ever rejected Richardson and Long and fully accepted Phillips.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Up to the present the combined result of those inquiries did not supply the police with the slightest clue to the murderer...

(SWANSON)

He obviously did not believe that Long saw the murderer with Chapman.

There is absolutely no connection whatever between your quote above "up to the present the combined result of those enquiries did not supply the slightest clue to the murderer", and Long's statement or Swanson's opinion as to its reliability. Your interpretation by linking them together is therefore totally irrelevant and without foundation.

The quote refers to and follows an account of certain listed police enquiries since the murder, for example at 29 Hanbury St, other lodging houses, pawnbrokers, the "insane students", and "other women of the same class" etc. Swanson wrote that those specific enquiries produced no evidence of value. The comment has nothing to do with Long's account, so you cannot claim that it "obviously" establishes anything about Swanson's opinion of Long.

[jmenges]

This is getting ridiculous.

JM

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Correction. I'm being equivalent.

- Jeff

If you were being 'equivalent', you would have answered by now.

And I note that you have not answered George, who made a similar point to mine, either.

Are you going to ignore him too, or are you planning to send him a weather forecast instead?

[JeffHamm]

It was an answer to your question.

Your talking about the weather, on the other hand, is not an answer to anything.

You're being facetious.

Correction. I'm being equivalent.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Your post at 510 wasn't an answer to my question. It was a reply, but saying "hello" is a reply, but not an answer if the question was "What time is it?".

But, ok. My response is "Yes, it is sunny today."

- Jeff

It was an answer to your question.

Your talking about the weather, on the other hand, is not an answer to anything.

You're being facetious.

[JeffHamm]

[QUOTE=PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1;n824875]

I was not aware of any time limit by which I have to answer your questions.

If you refuse to answer questions posed by other posters, even after having said that you would do so, what actually are you doing here?

see above

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

[QUOTE=JeffHamm;n824872]

Correction. I expected you to answer my question. Twice you didn't, hence I'm not answering yours. See how it works? It's not rocket science after all.

- Jeff

I was not aware of any time limit by which I have to answer your questions.

If you refuse to answer questions posed by other posters, even after having said that you would do so, what actually are you doing here?